Swirling LCM theory

Just wanted to post one more time to clarify what I am saying. What I am talking about is essentially the eye of a storm. When the radius expands on a swirling mass, the relative angle of velocity becomes more extreme at the extents, and less so in the middle. As such the winds within lose their power and an "eye" is formed. Now imagine such an eye forming in the LCM. What happens in any medium when you create a low pressure zone? Storms right? What happens in a storm where the substance of the storm has no inherent mass or friction? Wouldn't the geometry of the spin potentially be sustainable at a given rotational velocity? A balance that would keep it spinning until something stopped it?

Couldn't this explain perhaps why matter is "frozen" as this or that density and properties? Would it be possible that in fact this "eye wall" in the center of the storms has so much resistance that breaking through is extremely difficult. Have you ever heard of a wind current coming along and punching a hole in the side of a cyclone? What if you have two currents flowing in opposite spins? When you push one against the other the spins cancel and the medium snaps back into place, releasing the pent up media violently back into dispersion. Couldn't this be a sensible explanation for anti-matter and how it behaves?

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dangus</i>
<br />imagine such an eye forming in the LCM. What happens in any medium when you create a low pressure zone? Storms right?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is certainly not true in <i>any</i> medium. But if the medium is air, and the low pressure is accompanied by a torque, and enough warm water is added, a storm can result.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">What happens in a storm where the substance of the storm has no inherent mass or friction?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">With no inherent mass, collisions are not possible, so nothing can happen. Pure waves pass right through one another without any effect.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Wouldn't the geometry of the spin potentially be sustainable at a given rotational velocity? A balance that would keep it spinning until something stopped it?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How could spin be created in the first place if there is no friction? If spin can start, it can also stop. But torques are a type of force, and forces always have collisions of particles of some mass at their basis.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Couldn't this explain perhaps why matter is "frozen" as this or that density and properties?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Matter can be in any state, in accord with the temperature (kinetic energy) of its molecules. Plasma is most common. When plasmas cool, light elements form gasses. Heavier elements or cooler light elements that are packed tight enough to always be in contact form liquids. If the density increases further so the molecules are not free to flow, we get a solid.

I don't see what mystery you are trying to solve here by introducing an undefined "frozen" property.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Would it be possible that in fact this "eye wall" in the center of the storms has so much resistance that breaking through is extremely difficult.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This seems to contradict the "no friction" property. Also, anything attempting to "break through" would surely be exposed to the angular momentum of the "eye wall" and start to spin too.

It is going to be difficult to explain solids with fluids.

It sounds as if you are reverting to explaining nature with a "smallest possible entity" or a "fundamental" medium (LCM). But we already know that gravity cannot be explained without an even smaller medium (gravitons), and we know that irresolvable paradoxes arise if one proposes ANY smallest possible entity.

I recommend a review of the Meta Model in chapter one of "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets". It lays out all the constraints that must be met. Then, if you see holes in that picture, you can point to them and try to fix them. Otherwise, you appear to be trying to re-invent the wheel. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Is turbulence in the elysium possible or likely? And if so, what would it look like to human observers?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Astrodelugeologist</i>
<br />Is turbulence in the elysium possible or likely? And if so, what would it look like to human observers?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Elysium (same as LCM in previous posts) is a contiguous fluid. The closest analog we have is the deep ocean. Movement in deep water can set off a pressure wave. Movement in elysium sets off an electromagnetic wave. But because of the "contiguous" property (no space between medium elements), there might exist competing pressure waves from different sources; but it is difficult to imagine what we normally call "trubulence" because there is no room for the medium constituents to thrash about.

Is turbulence ever seen in solids or liquids? It seems to be a property exclusive to gases and plasmas. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">With no inherent mass, collisions are not possible, so nothing can happen. Pure waves pass right through one another without any effect<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for your reply. I've been struggling a bit with the terminology and perhaps saying "no friction" is not the best way to state what I mean. What I am talking about is a collision. That is, one object can't superimpose itself on the same space as another object, or if it does, they are both crushed by the incredible force of trying(pressure inside stars, etc.)

Recently scientists have claimed to create a limited form of matter in a lab using magnetic fields and lasers. The idea is that if the energy exceeds a certain amount within a given space, matter can be formed out of it. It's just that the requirements of energy to form even a single hydrogen atom are insanely high. It also suggests that a single energy source is unable to create matter alone. That it requires collision. So while they have no "friction" in a side-to-side passing by sense, they still collide.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I don't see what mystery you are trying to solve here by introducing an undefined "frozen" property<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, what I am getting at is the idea that matter is in flux. It's a very unstable concept. Nothing physical will permanently stay in that form. It's all just either falling apart, or waiting to. A what we perceive as lower temperatures, we're in fact just seeing more stability, less excess. If an given mass has a certain "spin" frequency, would that not explain harmonics, and how objects can be destroyed using their resonant frequency? Isn't our very concept of heat really just an expression of turbulence? It takes huge amounts of energy to destroy a single atom, but if you use a piece of anti-matter, or reach it's resonant frequency, destroying things is much easier.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also, anything attempting to "break through" would surely be exposed to the angular momentum of the "eye wall" and start to spin too<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually this was my point. Since other matter would be essentially an expression of the medium, other matter in a likewise spin would not be able to hit at an angle that would penetrate. Something with an opposite spin, like anti-matter, would have perfect cancellation though, and energy passing at right angles would cause disruptions, which we could measure as "heat". With enough of these we could destabilize the spin.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is going to be difficult to explain solids with fluids<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

My point is that there is no such thing as a solid. If we lived a billion years, even mountains would seem to form up and then melt away. It's all relative to our perception of time. We see roughly 25 frames per second, but what if that was 25 frames per billion years? Nothing would seem solid!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It sounds as if you are reverting to explaining nature with a "smallest possible entity" or a "fundamental" medium (LCM). But we already know that gravity cannot be explained without an even smaller medium (gravitons), and we know that irresolvable paradoxes arise if one proposes ANY smallest possible entity<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

While I enjoyed the book a great deal and think you are probably on to something, I disagree that Meta Model is proven. I don't really think ANY model at this point has it figured out. I wouldn't even disagree that there's a smaller medium, or that gravitons exist as a sort of "perfect fluid", but rather that expressions in one medium, even if another medium exists within it, still could behave in this manner. It's like how in a slurry of sand and water, water exists within the cloud of sand, but sand also exists and is supported by the water. I have no idea if a fundamental media exists, but I think it's worth exploring the idea that matter is hollow, and in fact not even really substance, but an expression of the lack of substance, compiled into an aggregate, which in turn is viewed by a perspective as something "solid".

---

"Regret can only change the future" -Me

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." Frank Herbert, Dune 1965